(CNN) -- The Justice Department secretly collected two months of telephone records for reporters and editors at The Associated Press, the news service disclosed Monday in an outraged letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.

The records included calls from several AP bureaus and the personal phone lines of several staffers, AP President Gary Pruitt wrote. Pruitt called the subpoenas a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into its reporting.

Imagine all the stuff we never hear about... as stated in the interview "Gov. has its own criteria and "exceptions" which they feel allow them to do whatever the heck they want. Scary stuff to be sure and I hope AP files suit (or better yet, the employee's who all had their phones tapped).

dcrane wrote:Imagine all the stuff we never hear about... as stated in the interview "Gov. has its own criteria and "exceptions" which they feel allow them to do whatever the heck they want. Scary stuff to be sure and I hope AP files suit (or better yet, the employee's who all had their phones tapped).

I've read a couple of stories about this and I don't recall seeing anything about phones being "tapped". AFAIK the information in question was more like what you'd see on a phone bill, and it was sought from the lines used by the fairly large number of people that AP itself identified as having participated in a story that on its face entailed a significant breach of national security info. I don't fly as often as I used to, but I'd prefer that there be consequences for people who compromise my safety by failing to safeguard confidential information about methods we have successfully used to thwart planned bombings of common carrier aircraft. I agree fully that privacy rights should be given heavy weight, and that freedom of the press is important, but neither of those considerations is absolute when they detract from public safety or national defense. If the collected information was obtained unlawfully or used for improper purposes, etc. I'd be first in line to say it's a problem. If there's no evidence of that - and so far I haven't seen any - it doesn't qualify as a scandal.

I guess "tapped" is an outdated word... but I trully believe this and previous Gov. CAN & DO listen and record phone conversations, I think they can also view all text messages and im sure could obtain them after the fact very easy (I dont think half the stuff they do is even known to us and however needed it may indeed be...Its a scary thought).

dcrane wrote:Imagine all the stuff we never hear about... as stated in the interview "Gov. has its own criteria and "exceptions" which they feel allow them to do whatever the heck they want. Scary stuff to be sure and I hope AP files suit (or better yet, the employee's who all had their phones tapped).

I've read a couple of stories about this and I don't recall seeing anything about phones being "tapped". AFAIK the information in question was more like what you'd see on a phone bill, and it was sought from the lines used by the fairly large number of people that AP itself identified as having participated in a story that on its face entailed a significant breach of national security info. I don't fly as often as I used to, but I'd prefer that there be consequences for people who compromise my safety by failing to safeguard confidential information about methods we have successfully used to thwart planned bombings of common carrier aircraft. I agree fully that privacy rights should be given heavy weight, and that freedom of the press is important, but neither of those considerations is absolute when they detract from public safety or national defense. If the collected information was obtained unlawfully or used for improper purposes, etc. I'd be first in line to say it's a problem. If there's no evidence of that - and so far I haven't seen any - it doesn't qualify as a scandal.

The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches, not all searches. The problem here started with a criminal act - i.e., the leak of confidential information that easily could jeopardize the lives of hundreds of civilians. To me it doesn't seem unreasonable to want to review somebody's phone bill if that will help to identify the perpetrator. If the information is lawfully obtained and used for that purpose, where's the scandal?

Pacowy wrote:The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches, not all searches. The problem here started with a criminal act - i.e., the leak of confidential information that easily could jeopardize the lives of hundreds of civilians. To me it doesn't seem unreasonable to want to review somebody's phone bill if that will help to identify the perpetrator. If the information is lawfully obtained and used for that purpose, where's the scandal?

Mike

Every time I get in a car, I "COULD" kill someone.

If "could" is the threshold for a search, then we'd all be investigated every day.

And if the Justice KNEW there was a crime, then why not go to a judge, present the evidence, and get a warrant?

Some folks are a little too fast and loose with their rights. Careful, you might wake up one day and find out you gave them all away....

Pacowy wrote:The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches, not all searches. The problem here started with a criminal act - i.e., the leak of confidential information that easily could jeopardize the lives of hundreds of civilians. To me it doesn't seem unreasonable to want to review somebody's phone bill if that will help to identify the perpetrator. If the information is lawfully obtained and used for that purpose, where's the scandal?

Mike

Hehe, there is the Rub! They..(meaning the AP /MSM) are outraged that their "Guy" would sink to the level of investigating "Them". Jeffery Tobin, CNN's Legal expert was explaining how the DOJ was within there legal rights to do so.

If BUSH would have tried it, all Hell would have been unleashed.

As it is now, the Press is not Amused and now it appears the WH may have kicked the hornets nest a bit to hard.

I knew in my heart that someday these Chicago thugs would get just a bit too cocky, and it would be their undoing. The undoing part remains to be seen, but my prophecy has been fulfilled .... and MUCH sooner than I had expected.

I can assure you I have plenty of skepticism regarding the motives behind some of the actions of governments, businesses and other organizations. What I don't have is the paranoia that some of you seem to share in which the legitimate functions of government are ignored and facts are routinely cast aside in order to cast every governmental action in the worst conceivable light.

The Constitution defines many tasks that the federal government is supposed to perform. At the heart of the AP situation is a task "the government" actually performed well - preventing a bomb from being placed on a passenger aircraft. That's not faith; that's fact. Nobody has explained why it would be good for American citizens to provide terrorists with open access to information regarding the methods we use - successfully - to prevent them from killing us. To me it is obvious that confidentiality regarding such information is important, and that it is appropriate to punish people who jeopardize our safety by breaching that confidentiality.

If searches were conducted unlawfully, or if the information obtained was used improperly, I'll be among the first to be concerned. However, basically all of the complaints seem to relate to fears that are not rooted in things that are known to have happened here (e.g., listening in on conversations). Such fears undoubtedly are heartfelt by some, but until they can be connected by some kind of evidence to the AP situation they don't seem to be very relevant.

The Patriot Act gives the Gov. the right to do many things, if there is a leak you have to try & plug it. If something would happen that would be traced back to that leak the same ones itchen now would be itchen that something wasn't done.

I can assure you I have plenty of skepticism regarding the motives behind some of the actions of governments, businesses and other organizations. What I don't have is the paranoia that some of you seem to share in which the legitimate functions of government are ignored and facts are routinely cast aside in order to cast every governmental action in the worst conceivable light.

The Constitution defines many tasks that the federal government is supposed to perform. At the heart of the AP situation is a task "the government" actually performed well - preventing a bomb from being placed on a passenger aircraft. That's not faith; that's fact. Nobody has explained why it would be good for American citizens to provide terrorists with open access to information regarding the methods we use - successfully - to prevent them from killing us. To me it is obvious that confidentiality regarding such information is important, and that it is appropriate to punish people who jeopardize our safety by breaching that confidentiality.

If searches were conducted unlawfully, or if the information obtained was used improperly, I'll be among the first to be concerned. However, basically all of the complaints seem to relate to fears that are not rooted in things that are known to have happened here (e.g., listening in on conversations). Such fears undoubtedly are heartfelt by some, but until they can be connected by some kind of evidence to the AP situation they don't seem to be very relevant.

Mike

It is not paranoia if it is actually happening. There is a set of guidelines that are to be followed to justify if a search is reasonable or not. It is not up to someone in office to say or do. Access to private phone records must be done through the proper channels no exception. If those guidelines are not followed it is criminal. That is the reason for the constitution.